You are on page 1of 12

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.

Groundwater Recharge in the Southern Amargosa Desert Using SurfaceRunoff Chemistry-11489


Omar Al-Qudah1, 3, John Walton1, Arturo Woocay1, and John Klenke2
1

Environmental Science and Engineering, University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP), 500 W.


University Ave., El Paso, TX, 79968
2
Nye County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office (NWRPO) 2101 E. Calvada Blvd., Suite
100, Pahrump, NV 89048
3
omal@miners.utep.edu, walton@utep.edu, awoocay@miners.utep.edu, jklenke@co.nye.nv.us
3
Corresponding Author (915) 422-4260
ABSTRACT
Accurate estimates of groundwater recharge are necessary components for understanding longterm sustainability of groundwater resources and predictions of groundwater flow rates and flow
directions. Amargosa Desert regional groundwater studies show that the surface runoff
infiltration occur in the arroyos following runoff producing storms, and this infiltration is
considered to be a major source of groundwater recharge. The present study attempts to
investigate how water chemistry evolves during the surface runoff and infiltration processes, in
the southern Amargosa Desert. In this ongoing study, four surface runoff samplers (SRS) were
installed at two different arroyos in the southern Amargosa Desert to capture the surface runoff
water. The sampling process included sediment, precipitation, and SRS water samples. In total,
four SRS, six sediment, and two precipitation samples were collected between September, 2009
and January, 2010. Analysis of chloride and the stable isotopes of water show substantial overlap
of values with underlying groundwater consistent with the concept that infiltration of surface
runoff is a major contributor to groundwater recharge in the study area. Groundwater ion
concentrations represent a large collection of infiltration events occurring over time, and an exact
match with surface runoff samples is unlikely. The SRS design proved its ability to function in
arid weather conditions and capture surface-runoff. Further sample collection, statistical analysis,
and infiltration modeling will be required to fully describe the evolution of water chemistry
between infiltration and old groundwater.
INTRODUCTION
Previous studies of the Amargosa Desert regional groundwater indicate that groundwater
recharge occurs from infiltration of stream-flow in the ephemeral arroyos and infiltration of
precipitation and runoff on the mountain ranges. Water may infiltrate from melting snowpack in
the mountains primarily on volcanic or carbonate rocks or adjacent to the mountains from
streams flowing over alluvium (fans and channels) [1]. Groundwater moves through permeable
zones under the influence of hydraulic gradients from areas of recharge to areas of discharge in
the regional system. Water quality studies of precipitation, surface water, and groundwater
isotopic and common ion concentrations, in addition to the computer simulation of the
groundwater system in the vicinity of the Amargosa Desert [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9] have
concluded recharge water is entering the groundwater system north of Yucca Mountain and have
determined that recharges from Fortymile Wash, Oasis Valley, and Amargosa River are a
significant source of groundwater.
1075

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.
Groundwater in the southern Amargosa Desert occurs in several interconnected, complex
groundwater flow systems. The water moves along relatively shallow and localized flow paths
that are superimposed on deeper, regional flow paths [1]. Regional groundwater flow is
predominantly through conduits in the carbonate rocks. This flow field is influenced by complex
geologic structures created by regional faulting and fracturing that can create conduits or barriers
to flow. Infiltration of precipitation and runoff on high mountain ranges is thought to be the
largest source of groundwater recharge. Springs and evapotranspiration are the dominant natural
groundwater discharge processes [1]. The southern Amargosa Desert includes the major
discharge areas of Oasis Valley, Fortymile wash, and Amargosa River, which are Ash Meadows
Alkali FlatFurnace Creek (Franklin Playa). Near Yucca Mountain and in areas immediately to
the south, vertical gradients are dominantly upward from the carbonate-rock aquifer into the
intermediate system and flow is toward discharge areas to the south and southwest. Groundwater
in the southern Amargosa Desert may either flow through fractures in the southeastern end of the
Funeral Mountains and discharge in the Furnace Creek area or flow southward and discharge at
Alkali Flat [1].
PREVIOUS STUDIES
Winograd and Thordarson [10] described the groundwater in the southern Amargosa Desert as a
mixed type, which graded into a (Na+K) HCO3/mixed type to the west. Claassen [2] divides the
water chemistry in the Southern Amargosa Desert into three groups: volcanic, carbonate and
mixed ground waters. Claassen [2] found that the north-central part of Amargosa Desert has the
lowest values of Na+, Ca2+, HCO3- and SO42-, with ion concentrations increasing sharply to the
east and west. This coincides with the presence of highly permeable sands and gravels within the
center of the Amargosa Desert. Amargosa Desert has been modeled as a system that is closed to
atmospheric CO2 [2 and 3] because Pco2 decreases along the flow path. Assuming cooler
recharge conditions during Pleistocene time, Claassen [2] used 13C, 2H and 18O to support his
hypothesis that water was recharged to the valley fill primarily through runoff infiltration and
overland flow from Pleistocene studies of the southern Amargosa Desert [11, 12, and 13]
indicate that the mineralogy itself is likely to be a factor in controlling the dominance of K, Mg
and Ca minerals, and it appeares to be controlled with respect to montmorillonites, illites,
feldspars, quartz polymorphs, chlorite, and deposits of sepiolite, dolomite, and calcite. Bish [14]
noted that sodium is the dominant alkaline exchangeable cation in the shallow smectites, whereas
deeper smectites contain subequal Na+, K+ and Ca2+.
White [15] found that evapotranspiration causes Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) increase, calcium
increases due to CaCO3 input from carbonate rocks, and potassium and fluoride. White [15] also
found that in water containing moderate amounts of Mg2+, the principal alteration product is
montmorillonite, Mg2+ is deficient, but Na+ and K+ were present, zeolites such as clinoptilolite,
mordenite, analcime and chabasite would form.
Winograd and Thordarson [10] first suggested the flow path from Pahute Mesa to Oasis Valley
to Amargosa Desert, and this path shows an increase of K-montmorillonite, K-feldspar and Camontmorillonite precipitation along the flow paths. They explained this by either the
thermodynamics of the system being most conducive for K+ and Ca2+ ion exchange within the
montmorillonites, or an increase in Ca2+ to the system through weathering of carbonate detritus
or inflow from a carbonate aquifer. For the area of Oasis Valley and Amargosa Desert, both of
these are likely to be factors in controlling the dominance of K and Ca minerals.
1076

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.
Potentiometric heads and hydrochemical data indicate that the Alkali Flat (also known as the
Franklin Lake Playa), located in the southern end of the Amargosa Desert is a major discharge
area for the alluvial aquifer system. Estimated discharge at Alkali Flat is about 10,000 acre-feet
per year [16]. Discharge at the playa occurs primarily through evapotranspiration, the principal
component of which is bare-soil evaporation [16]. Some groundwater may flow beneath the
mountain at the south end of the playa and continue southward [16]. Regional water table maps
of the alluvial aquifer [16] also suggest that a portion of the flow in the alluvial aquifer may be
moving southwest through the abutting carbonate rocks of the Funeral Mountains, and
discharging into Death Valley.
This study explores the relationship between rainfall-runoff and groundwater chemistry, during a
flood event in the southern Amargosa Desert Region, Nevada, and presents an evidence of runoff
chemical signature on the infiltration and groundwater recharge.
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The Amargosa Desert (Figure 1a) is located in the southern portion of Nye County in south
central Nevada, within the Great Basin, and is part of the Death Valley groundwater basin. The
Funeral Mountains separate the Amargosa Desert from Death Valley to the southwest, and a
series of mountain ranges bound the north and east extents of the desert. The Amargosa River is
a major drainage component (over 8,047 km2) of the unique closed-basin, hydrologic regime
known as the Great Basin. This river system begins in the Oasis Valley, turns southeast to run
through the Amargosa Desert, continues until it turns northwest, and terminates in Death Valley
from its southeast extension. As a result of a dry, semi-arid, continental climate, the Amargosa
River and its tributaries are ephemeral streams that are dry most of the time except in a few
relatively short reaches where discharging springs maintain small, perennial base flows.
Fortymile Wash and Beatty Wash (in addition to the Washes in Crater Flat and Rock Valley) are
the major tributaries of the upper Amargosa River, which drains through several small, populated
areas downstream (Figure 1a).
Ash Meadows and Franklin Playa (Figure 1b) basins are portions of Amargosa Desert, and
located in the central and southern part of the Amargosa Desert respectively. Almost all the
underground flow of the Amargosa River drainage through Amargosa Valley is thought to
evaporate at Franklin Lake Playa at the south end of the valley, ending at Eagle Mountain.
The Amargosa River channel cuts through this area of obvious evaporation, and carries runoff
from large or localized storm events out of the valley [17]. Franklin Lake playa is one of the
principal discharge areas of the Furnace Creek Ranch-Alkali Flat ground-water-flow system in
southern Nevada and adjacent California (Figure 1b).

1077

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.

Fig. 1a. DEM map for the study area showing locations of Amargosa Desert Region, Amargosa
River, Ash Meadows, and Franklin Playa, NV. Red triangles represent site SRS-22 and SRS-23,
and the yellow stars represent the selected groundwater wells around the site locations.

1078

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.

Fig. 1b. Google earth map of the study area. Red triangles represent site SRS-22 and SRS-23,
and the yellow stars represent the selected groundwater wells around the site locations
The present climate in the Amargosa Desert region is arid to semiarid, with average annual
precipitation ranging from less than 130 millimeters (mm) at lower elevations to more than 280
mm at higher elevations [18]. Precipitation associated with a weather disturbance moving
eastward from California has caused the most extensive regional runoff in Fortymile Wash and
Amargosa River in February 1969 [19].

1079

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.
METHODS
Research included site selection, SRS design construction and field emplacement, and sample
analysis criteria as described in a previous paper [20] in detail. This paper will be focused on the
chemical analysis results.
Four SRS have been installed at two different arroyos in the southern Amargosa Desert to
capture runoff water believed to be an important source of groundwater recharge in the area. The
first site is SRS-22, located in a tributary of Rock Valley Wash (lower reaches) 0.13 miles east of
Mecca Road; the second site is SRS-23, located in the upper Mud and Alkali Flat, 0.36 miles upgradient from Ash Meadows road. Each location includes two SRSs, one filled with washed
silica sand (WSB), and the other filled by natural alluvium (NAB) from the same site. The
samples collected from these sites included sediment, precipitation, and SRS. Sediment samples
were collected from each site at the time of the SRS installation, and also shortly after two storm
events, one occurring in September 2009 and the other occurring in January 2010; following
these storms, SRS samples were collected from the WSBs at each location,. Additionally, after
the January 2010 precipitation event, samples were collected from rain gauges at each site along
with a NAB runoff sample from site SRS-23. In total, four SRS-WSB, one SRS-NAB, six
sediment, and two precipitation samples were collected during September, 2009 and January,
2010.
Groundwater chemistry data for 25 groundwater wells around SRSs were obtained from Nye
County Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office (NWRPO) [21] and Los Alamos National
Laboratory [22] and compiled into a single database. The chemical data includes Cl, SO4, total
alkalinity, Na, Ca, K, Mg, TDS, F, Si, 2H, and 18O.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:
Table 1 below shows the measured amount of water accumulated in the rain gauges and SRS
from WSBs, and NABs from sampling locations after two storm events that occurred in the study
area in September 2009, and January 2010.
Table I. The Measured Amount of water accumulated in the rain gauges, and SRS from WSBs,
and NABs after two storm events that occurred in September 2009, and January 2010.
Location

Collection Date

SRS-22
SRS-23
SRS-22
SRS-23

9/24/2009
9/24/2009
1/26/2010
1/26/2010

Cumulative rain
gauges
precipitation (mm)
0
0
47
34.3

Amount of
accumulated
water in WSB
(Liter)

Amount of
accumulated
water in NAB
(Liter)
0.10
0.10
1.90
3.11

0
0
0
3.10

In September 2009, the rain gauges were empty (dried by evaporation), but two 100 ml samples
were collected from WSBs; the NABs did not yield any samples. In January 2010, the rain gauge
in SRS-22 measured 47 mm of rain water, and 1900 ml of water accumulated in the SRS-22
WSB, whereas the NAB yielded no water. In the same time, the rain gauge in SRS-23 measured
1080

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.
34.3 mm of rain water, 3110 ml of water accumulated in the WSB, and 3100 ml of water
accumulated in the NAB. At the time of sampling, type of sediment and thickness of the
sediment layer above each bucket indicated the presence of surface water runoff in the study
area. The rain gauges are simple (low cost) collectors that are open to the atmosphere. Rain
gauge readings and chemistry were subject to unknown amounts of evaporation prior to
collection so the readings should not be equated with precipitation amount or initial chemistry.
The rain gauges included both wet-fall and dry-fall since the last time they were emptied.
Box plots (Figures 2-13) below show the major ion concentrations in addition to TDS, 2H, and
18O comparison between the SRS, precipitation, sediment, and selected groundwater wells in
the study area.
Figure 2, shows significant evaporative concentration occurs between precipitation and
groundwater (by a magnitude of three). Chloride is a conservative ion and thus tracks
evaporative concentration of waters. Also, Chloride is highly soluble and has few geologic
sources, making it an excellent tracer of evaporative concentration. Concentrations of chloride
are approximately similar in the SRS and groundwater, even when the data shows that the
groundwater has higher salinity (TDS). The chloride trend can be described as groundwater
SRS sediment precipitation. This is consistent with the hypothesis that infiltration of surface
runoff from storms has been a dominant source of groundwater in this area.
Figure 3, shows the box plots of alkalinity for each group, alkalinity increases greatly between
precipitation and sediment, decreases slightly between sediment and SRS, and then increases
slightly when going from SRS to groundwater. The alkalinity trend can be described as
groundwater sediment > SRS > precipitation. This may be caused by precipitation and
dissolution equilibrium of calcium carbonate, carbonate rocks, and from silicate mineral
weathering reactions which increase both sodium and alkalinity, and this matches with
White [15]. The H2CO3 contributes H+, which attacks silicate minerals resulting in the release of
cations (M+) and the formation of bicarbonate by the reaction:
(Silicate rock) (M+) + H2CO3

(Silicate rock) (H+) + M+ + HCO3-

Figure 4, shows the box plots of TDS for the different groups, with TDS increasing between
precipitation and sediment, decreasing between sediment and SRS, and then again increasing
between SRS and groundwater. The TDS trend can be described as groundwater > sediment
SRS > precipitation.
Figure 5, shows the box plots of sulfate concentrations for the different categories. Sulfate
increases between precipitation, sediment, SRS, and groundwater, can be described as
groundwater > SRS sediment > precipitation. The increase in sulfate moving from surface
runoff to groundwater may be due to longer flow paths in the southern Amargosa Desert which
allow more water/rock interaction and hydrothermal alteration of older volcanic rocks, i.e.
secondary mineralization believed to have formed under closed conditions.

1081

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.

1082

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.
Figure 6, shows the box plots of calcium concentrations in each group, with calcium increasing
between precipitation and sediment, and then decreasing between sediment, groundwater, and
SRS. The calcium trend can be described as sediment groundwater SRS > precipitation.
Weathering causes enrichment of calcium concentrations, in the form of CaCO3 originally
derived from carbonate rocks along the flow paths.
Figure 7, shows the box plots of magnesium in the different categories, with the trend being
described as groundwater SRS sediment > precipitation. Increasing of magnesium in the
groundwater may be caused by the (Ca+Mg) HCO3 carbonate aquifer.
Figure 8, shows the box plots of sodium concentrations in the different categories. Sodium
appears to concentrate by evaporation and increase in amount between precipitation, sediment,
SRS, and groundwater. Unlike chloride, sodium increases when moving from the SRS to
groundwater group. The sodium trend can be described as groundwater > SRS sediment >
precipitation. Most of the alkalinity in the areas groundwater is non-carbonate (Na+K) HCO3,
derived from weathering of silicate rocks rather than dissolution of carbonate rocks, and would
account for this increase in sodium. Sodium also may originate as a result of ion exchange with
calcium in infiltrating water.
Figure 9, shows the box plots of potassium concentration in the different categories, with
potassium increasing greatly between the precipitation and sediment group, decreasing slightly
between sediment and SRS groups, and then again increasing slightly from the SRS to
groundwater group. The potassium trend can be described as groundwater sediment SRS >
precipitation.

1083

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.
Figure 10, shows the box plots of fluoride in the different categories. The fluoride trend can be
described as precipitation > SRS sediment groundwater.
Figures 11 and 12, show the box plots of 2H and 18O in the SRS and groundwater respectively;
2H is similar in the SRS and groundwater; 18O is slightly increased between SRS and
groundwater. Once below the evaporation zone, recharging ground waters generally do not
undergo phase changes. Therefore, oxygen and hydrogen isotopes do not experience further
fractionation and may be considered to be conservative in the flow system. Exceptions to this
may occur during digenetic mineral formation or where exchange with calcite may cause a shift
towards heavier 18O values [23], and this explained the slightly increased of 18O between SRS
and groundwater. The 2H and 18O results indicate that water runoff is a major source of
groundwater recharge in the study area.
Figure 13, shows the box plots of non carbonate alkalinity for the different groups, non carbonate
alkalinity is approximately the same in the precipitation and SRS and increases slightly in the
sediment and groundwater. The non carbonate alkalinity trend can be described as groundwater
sediment > SRS precipitation. The non carbonate alkalinity forms 80%, and 60% from total
alkalinity in the groundwater/sediment, and precipitation/SRS, respectively. Increasing of non
carbonate alkalinity in the groundwater may be caused by the Na/HCO3 aquifer.
CONCLUSIONS
Because the degree of evaporation is unknown the changes in chemistry between precipitation
and SRS samples is best viewed in terms of the changes in chemical signature rather than in
terms of individual concentrations. In non runoff producing storms the water has time to react
with soil minerals prior to evaporation. When near complete evaporation of the water occurs the
isotopic signature of the water will be lost, but any dissolved ions (and dry-fall) will remain in
the shallow soil and sediments. When surface runoff occurs the new precipitation mixes with
shallow soil moisture and dissolves some of the precipitated salts in the desiccated soil. The soil
samples represent a leaching of the shallow sediment in the stream bottom, but the most soluble
salts in these samples (e.g., chloride) may have been leached by a runoff event prior to sampling.
The soil leaching process also provided less contact time between soil and water than the
infiltration process.
Chloride and the stable isotopes of water show substantial overlap of values with underlying
groundwater, consistent with the concept that infiltration of surface runoff is a major contributor
to groundwater recharge in the study area. Groundwater concentrations represent a larger
collage of infiltration events than have been collected in the surface runoff sampling making an
exact match unlikely.
With the exception of fluoride, all other analytes are higher in groundwater than the SRS
samples. This is consistent with dissolution and weathering of minerals during and subsequent to
the infiltration process, but not with large amounts of additional evaporation prior to deep
infiltration. The influence of transpiration on the chemistry of infiltrating water is more
complicated than that of evaporation given that chloride uptake differs between plants; leading to
a combination of evaporative concentration at depth and transport to the surface with eventual
recycling in leaves and dead plant materials.

1084

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Funding for this research was provided by Nye County, NV through a grant from the US
Department of Energy office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Roger McRae and the
rest of the Nye County Staff for assistance with sampler construction, installation, and
sampling.Dr. David Borrok (Geological Department, UTEP) and Dr. Zhuping Sheng (Texas
Agrilife Research Center) and their research groups for their help and support with chemical
analysis. The Center for Environmental Resource Management of The University of Texas at El
Paso for their funding and support.
REFERENCES
1. FAUNT, C.C., DAGNESE, F.A., and OBRIEN, G.M., Death Valley Regional Ground-Water Flow
System, Nevada and California-Hydrogeologic Framework and Transient Ground-Water Flow
Model, U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations
Report 2004-5205. (2004).
2. CLAASSEN, H.C., Sources and Mechanisms of Recharge for Groundwater in the West-Central
Amargosa Desert, Nevada-A Geochemical Interpretation, U.S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper 712-F, 31 p. (1985).
3. WHITE, A.F., and CHUMA, N.J., Carbon and Isotopic Mass Balance Models of Oasis ValleyFortymile Canyon Groundwater Basin, Southern Nevada, Water Res. Research, v. 23, no. 4, p.
571-582. (1987).
4. BENSON, L., and KLIEFORTH, H. , Stable Isotopes in Precipitation and Groundwater in the Yucca
Mountain Region, Southern Nevada Paleoclimate Implications, in Peterson, D.H., ed., Aspects of
Climate Variability in the Pacific and Western Americas, American Geophysical Union
Geophysical Monograph 55, p. 41-59.(1989).
5. PATTERSON, G.L. and OLIVER, T.A., Trace and Minor Elements in Saturated-Zone Water Near
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Geological Society of America Annual Meeting, Nov. 7-10, 2004,
Vol.36, No. 5. (2004).
6. USGS, Yucca Mountain Research, Groundwater Chemistry <http://www.usgs.gov/>. (2004).
7. SAVARD, C.S., Groundwater Recharge in Fortymile Wash Near Yucca Mountain, Nevada, 1992-93,
IHLRWM Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada, May 2226, 1994. American Nuclear Society and American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 1805-1813.
8. SAVARD, C.S., and BECK, D.A., Transmission Losses in Fortymile Wash Near Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, Eos, American Geophysical Union Transaction, v. 75, no. 44, p. 283. (1994).
9. SAVARD, C.S., Estimated Groundwater Recharge From Streamflow in Fortymile Wash Near Yucca
Mountain, Nevada. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 97-7273, pp. 130. (1997).
10. WINOGRAD, I.J., and THORDARSON, W., Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Framework,
South-Central Great Basin, Nevada-California, with Special Reference to the Nevada Test Site,
U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-C. 125 p. (1975).
11. EBERL, D.D., JONES, B.F., and KHOURY, H.N., Mixed-Layer Kerolite/Stevensite from the
Amargosa Desert, Nevada, Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 30, No. 5, 321-326. (1982).
12. KHOURY, H.N., EBERL, D.D., and JONES, B.F., Origin of Magnesium Clays from the Amargosa
Desert, Nevada, Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol. 30, No. 5, 327-336. (1982).

1085

WM2011 Conference, February 27 - March 3, 2011, Phoenix, AZ, session 023, topic 7.9.
13. PAPKE, K. G., A Sepiolite-Rich Playa Deposit in Southern Nevada, Clays and Clay Minerals, Vol.
20, pp. 211-215. (1972).
14. BISH, D. L., Smectite Dehydration and Stability: Applications to Radioactive Waste Isolation at
Yucca Mountain, Nevada, Los Alamos National Laboratory Report LA-11023-MS, 31 p. (1988).
15. WHITE, A.F., Geochemistry of Groundwater Associated with Tuffaceous Rocks, Oasis Valley,
Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 712-E, 25 p. (1979).
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - National Service Center for Environmental
Publications (NSCEP), Public Health and Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for
Yucca Mountain Neveda: Background Information Documant for 40 CFR 197, EPA 402-R-01005. (2001).
17. The Little River That Could: Nevada's Amargosa River, internet access
<http://www.thoughtsandplaces.org/AmargosaR/AmRiver2.html>, accessed date October, 2010.
18. FLINT, A.L., FLINT, L.E., BODVARSSON, G.S., KWICKLIS, E.M. and FABRYKA-MARTIN,
J.T., Evolution of the Conceptual Model of Unsaturated Zone Hydrology at Yucca Mountain,
Nevada, Journal of Hydrology, 247:1-30. (2001).
19. BECK, D. A., and GLANCY, P. A., Overview of Runoff of March 11, 1995, in Fortymile Wash and
Amargosa River, Southern Nevada, U.S. Geological Survey-95. (1995).
20. AL-QUDAH, O.M., WALTON, J.C., WOOCAY, A., Tracking the Chemical Footprint of SurfaceRunoff Infiltration on Groundwater Recharge in an Arid Region, 2010 Waste Management
Symposium, Phoenix, AZ, March 7-11. (2010).
21. NWRPO (Nuclear Waste Repository Project Office). 2003. "Geochemistry data files." Nye County,
Nevada. http://www.nyecounty.com. Accessed June 2004.
22. LANL (Los Alamos National Laboratory), 2003. "Regional Groundwater Hydrochemical Data in the
Yucca Mountain Are Used as Direct Input to ANLNBS-00021." LA0309RR831233.001, May,
2003.
23. MATUSKA, N.A., HESS, J.W., The Relationship of the Yucca Mountain-Repository Block to the
Regional Groundwater System: a Geochemical Model, NWPO-TR-011-89. (1989).

1086

You might also like